It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush wants proof of Iran's suspended nuclear efforts

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Its coming folks. Its coming fast. The demands are starting....

"CARTAGENA, Colombia (AP) -- President Bush said Monday that he hopes Iran's claim that it has suspended uranium enrichment and has no nuclear weapons ambitions is true, but "there must be verification..."


www.cnn.com...


Man im glad my kid is way to young to be part of a draft or "creative" enlistment techniques....




posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:42 PM
link   


TextBut, he added, "I think the definition of truth is the willingness of the Iranian regime to allow for verification."




This sounds to me like the same type of verification he asked Sadam to provide and even after they did, US still went ahead an ivaded the country.

I bet Iranians are very willing indeed.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   
The iranians are probably very tired of Bush's rantings. I bet we will see a TV appearance by the iranian president in the next days saying 'Mr. Bush, please f*** off'

[edit on 22-11-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Yet again we will see the U.S. pretend to be enraged as it forces another country to prove a negative that it can't possibly do. I hope the Iranians have already got their bags packed to leave before the U.S. gets there with guns blazing, because that train of lies won't stop with Iraq.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Deja Vu or what ?
He did the exact same thing with Iraq. Get ready for another chapter in the 'Bush Wars'. :shk:



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 06:19 PM
link   
here comes another bush blunder
( wounder if he will drag the UK into this one
)



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Hmmmm. Would all of you suggest that everyone just sit back and let Iran develop nuclear weapons?

Yes or no?



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
Hmmmm. Would all of you suggest that everyone just sit back and let Iran develop nuclear weapons?

Yes or no?


Well so far India, Pakistan, NK and Isreal have them but occurs we can not allowed evil Iran to get their hands on them, but Pakistan is not better and US had done nothing to stop them.

I will let you think about it.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
Hmmmm. Would all of you suggest that everyone just sit back and let Iran develop nuclear weapons?

Yes or no?


yes since its ok for israel to have over 200 nukes and Iran has the USA always knocking at its door its only fair they have deterrent



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 04:38 AM
link   


"CARTAGENA, Colombia (AP) -- President Bush said Monday that he hopes Iran's claim that it has suspended uranium enrichment and has no nuclear weapons ambitions is true, but "there must be verification..."


Coming from a man who chided the tounge of "we want proof of WMD'S"...

Deep



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 10:35 AM
link   
"story.news.yahoo.com
BELGRADE, Serbia-Montenegro - A probe into the mysterious shooting of two soldiers has revealed the existence beneath the Serbian capital of a secret communist-era network of tunnels and bunkers that could have served as recent hideouts for some of the world's most-wanted war crimes suspects.

The 2-square-mile complex dubbed a "concrete underground city" by the local media was built deep inside a rocky hill in a residential area of Belgrade in the 1960s on the orders of communist strongman Josip Broz Tito. Until recently its existence was known only to senior military commanders and politicians.

The secret was revealed during an investigation this month into the deaths of two soldiers who were guarding an entrance to the complex. Both were found fatally shot. "


Just think, Yugoslavia has been thoroughly searched by thousands of troops. The people, in most cases, have even cooperated in searching the countries that formerly made up Yugoslavia. And we never found a two square mile bunker! Think about this deeply. This could mean that WMD could exist, couldn't it?

Remember, Iraq is about the same size as California. It's no surprise that we still havn't found WMD in Iraq when you consider how long we've been searching for Bigfoot in California. Heck.....maybe there's an amusement park underneath Bagdad?



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I love these little blurps individuals pull out. It's amusing when all the doomsday-preaching liberals come out of the woodwork like roaches when the lights go out.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I'll choose to look at the bigger picture here, perhaps simplifying it too.

Bush and his Carlyle administration are vastly approaching the end of the conquer Iraq campaign with the January elections in the horizon. Iraq and Iran are like two pea's in a middle east pod, so the military forces are already aligned for an invasion into Iran which makes complete sense if your goal is to spread hand puppet governments.

Hitler did the same on his conquering path moving south through out Europe, taking over one neighbouring country after another. It makes complete sense resourcefully. Everyone knows that North Korea imposes a much greater threat towards neuclear prolifiration but to uproot the military and move them over into Asia when Iran is in the grasps, well it doesnt make much sense if you enjoy playing the board game Risk.

Fun isnt it..



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I think Bush just announced to the world he's gonna invade Iran sometime soon.

He has made it apparent the truth is not of any concern to him. He's just gonna ask for U.N. Resolution after resolution until he formulates a very tasty reason to invade Iran.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 01:48 AM
link   
I guess I might point this out, but many of you do not see the sillyness of Bush' demand. You cannot prove you don't have something. This premise is based on guilty until proven innocent. If you search my house for drugs and don't find it, then you can still say that I am hiding it and I am still guilty. It tries to validate the burden of proof on something that can't be proven. You cannot prove that you don't have something. No matter how much information you try to gather, you can never prove how much money I don't have in my wallet right now. Do some of you understand how ignorant this line of thinking is?



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 01:56 AM
link   
If Bush wants proof of something, how about starting with prooving he actually won an election in the US. Let's see some proof that the american people have mandated anything but his resignation. Don't try to tell me about election results either, you can't coun't electrons zipped through rigged software. If he can proove that, then maybe he will have the RIGHT to demand anything of other nations. He's a fine one to be talking about proof, like Iraqi Yellow Cake from Niger? Maybe that is the kind of proof that works for that turd, but the international community is going to catch on to this game eventually. The next four years are going to be really interesting.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
Hmmmm. Would all of you suggest that everyone just sit back and let Iran develop nuclear weapons?

Yes or no?
Well if USA with a crazy President can have them why not Iran?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join